Daniel De Leon; the stuggle against opportunism in the American labor movement

Daniel De Leon

THE STRUGGLE
AGAINST OPPORTUNISM IN
THE AMERICAN LABOR MOVEMENT

By L. G. RAISKY

Professor^ (Department of History
Leningrad University

^■H

PRICE 20 CENTS

NEW YORK LABOR NEWS COMPANY

45 Rose Street, New York City

Daniel De Leon

THE STRUGGLE
AGAINST OPPORTUNISM IN

DANIEL DE LEON

THE AMERICAN LABOR MOVEMENT

The Struggle Against Opportunism

in the American Labor Movement

By L. G. Raisky

Professor Department o) History,

Leningrad University.

A brief sketch of the activities and the-

By L. G. RAISKY

ories of Daniel De Leon in relation to the

Professor, Department of iHistory

American labor movement by a Russian

Leningrad University

who, despite the disadvantages of his

viewing De Leon's work from the stand-

point of an industrially backward country,

succeeds far better than the average Eu-

ropean in appraising the subject of his

sketch.

With critical annotations, footnotes and

an appendix by the present publishers.

48 pp.-HPirice 20c.

NEW YORK LABOR NEWS GO.

45 Rose St., New York City

NEW YORK LABOR NEWS COMPANY

A

45 Rose Street, New York City
1932

345164

FOREWORD.

cd

In the following pages? is pre-
sented a translation by one Povsner
of L. G. Raisky's essay, "Daniel De
Leon and the Struggle Against Op-
portunism in the American Labor
Movement." Raisky is (or was at
the time) professor at Leningrad
University, Department of History.
It appeared originally in the Com-
munist, a magazine published by the
American Anarcho-Oommunist group,
issues of September and October
19i30. The essay was considered to
be one of the best coming from Eu-
ropean quarters, so good that the
Editor of the WEEKLY PEOPLE,
official organ of the Socialist Labor
Party, decided to reprint it. Before
doing so, however, efforts were
made to .check up on the translation,
experience having demonstrated that
no reliance could fee placed an the
honesty or disinterestedness of the
Anarcho-Coraimunists. Through the
courtesy of Professor JRaisky him-
self (with whom the National Sec-
retary of the Socialist Labor Party
had previously corresponded) a
copy of the original Russian edition
was secured. Comrade M. Kowar-
sky of Section Kings County, So-
cialist Labor Party, -who is thor-
oughly conversant with Russian,
compared the Russian very careful-
ly with the Communist version, and
on the whole only minor errors were
discovered which have been cor-
rected. But of greater importance
than the incidental errors and crudi-

ties is the fact that several para-
graphs dealing specifically with the
Socialist Labor Party and its rela-
tion to trade unionism were deliber-
ately suppressed, whether by the
translator or by the publishers mat-
ters not. These deletions have been
indicated by embracing them in
brackets, and they may be found on
page 19. The fact of these ex-
purgations adds renewed force to
the contention of the Socialist Labor
Party that it is the intended victim
of a cons-piracy of silence in which
(in common recognition of the fact
that the S. L. P. stands on the work-
ing class side of the class struggle
line, with all the other groups on
the other iside) are joined in frater-
nal fellowship the old capitalist par-
ties, the labor fakers, the bourgeois-
liberal "Socialist party," the Anar-
cho-Comimunist party and its off-
shoots and subsidiaries. Despite dif-
ferences among themselves, these
groups act as one in their hatred and
fear of the Socialist Labor Party.
This "community of interest" in op-
posing the Marxian Socialist Labor
Party has perhaps been best ex-
pressed by Wm. J. Ghent, former
member of the Socialist parly, at
one time one of that Party 's chief
formulators of principles and pol-
icies, and who was secretary to the
late Social Democratic politician
Victor IL. Berger when the latter
served in the U. S. Congress. Said
Ghent:

Printed in the United States of America.

"If there is, is© far na I am ac-
quainted with the sito&Uon one coim-
mon attitude among all these war-
ring groups, it is that the Socialist
Labor Party and every one con-
nected with it is to be ignored."

Neither the out-and-out capitalist
nor his agents (conscious or other-
wise) have as yet learned that the
oslrii li act can fool none (but the
tribe of ostriches, including, as we
have seen here, the Anarcho-
Comnrunist ostrich.

Wherever necessary, corrections
and dissenting views have been re-

January 1932.

corded in footnotes. Mr. Raisky's
cvn fcufcii'tes are indicated by the
initials "L. R." Ours are clearly
indicated by the signature "Pub-
lishers." In addition, we are print-
ing an appendix prepared by the
Editor of the WEEKLY PEOPLE
and the National Secretary of the
Socialist Labor Party. With these
corrections and exceptions this work
is commended to the readers as one
of the fairest and (within its limits)
best appraisals of De Leon that so
far has emanated from non^Socialist
Labor Party sources.

ARNOLD PETERSEN.

DANIEL DE LEON

1.

At the end of the second third of
the past century Karl Marx wrote,
not without good reason, that the
United States was a European col-
ony. But how radically and with
what unheard of speed has the situa-
tion changed! Already at the begin-
ning of the '90s the United States,
by the scale of its industrial produc-
tion, firmly assumed the first place
among the capitalist countries of the
world, leaving far behind not only
Germany and France, but also the
"world's workshop," England.

The character and structure of
American capitalism changed radi-
cally. A noticeable development of
monopoly capital in the United
States had already begun in the '80's.
In 1879 Rockefeller founded the oil
trust which was reorganized in 1882
along modern lines. Five years later
a sugar trust, embracing twenty-one
factories, was established. The vic-
torious march of monopoly capital
led to dismay among the middle and
petty bourgeoisie who attempted to
build a legal dam against the ap-
proaching "disaster." But the Sher-
man law which was adopted by Con-
gress in 1890 proved to be impotent
in the struggle against the mighty
economic elements: the growth of
monopoly of capital was not stop-
ped. Furthermore, it easily broke
through the weak judicial barriers

and confidently, irresistibly swamped
the economic life of the country.

Where was the government at the
time? How did it react to this at-
titude of the capitalists toward the
Sherman law? What did the gov-
ernment do to combat the endless
violations of this notorious law? It
closed its eyes upon these "frolics"
of the plutocracy. Moreover, it ac-
tively helped the bourgeoisie to
evade the laws which were issued
in order to hoodwink the voters. The
only real effect of the Sherman law
was its unexpected interpretation by
the Supreme Court in the sense that
trade unions are organizations vio-
lating the "freedom of labor" and
therefore non-constitutional.

After firmly capturing the deci-
sive economic and political positions
within the country, finance capital of
the United States appeared in the
'90's on the world arena. In a ohase
for South American and Far Eastern
markets, American imperialism took
up with great vim the work of con-
quering the commanding heights of
the Caribbean Sea and Pacific
Ocean. As early as 1893, the
United States virtually annexed the
Hawaiian Islands. In 1898 Amer-
ican imperialism provoked a war
with Spain, quickly and thoroughly
defeating that country and annexing
the Philippine Islands, Guam, Porto
Rico, and establishing its protecto-
rate over Cuba.

/.

"Irresistible economic forces drive
us toward the domination of the
world!" By these words Senator
Lodge formulated on the eve of the
twentieth century the program of
the youthful and avaricious Amer-
ican imperialism.

Tie United States was converted
into a classic country of capitalist
monopoly and imperialism.

II.

The sharp changes which devel-
oped in the social and economic life
of the United States produced new
conditions for, and a new character
in the labor movement.

In the latter half of the '80's
the power and influence of the
Knights of Labor, the mass or-
ganization of the unskilled work-
ers, reached its apex. Contrary
to the position of the lead-
ers who intended to solve the labor
problem by mutual aid and peaceful
cooperative development, the work-
ers threw themselves into stormy
strike struggle. This was a period
of sharp class battles. The labor
aristocracy took an extremely hos-
tile attitude towards the struggle of
the unskilled workers; they reacted
with even greater enmity towards
the attempt of the Knights of La-
bor to gain control over the unions
of skilled workers. And when the
bourgeoisie resorted to lockouts,
blacklists and police terror in order
to crush the Knights of Labor, the
trade unions assumed an attitude of
friendly neutrality, and sometimes
even of active assistance to the bour-
geoisie. By the united efforts of the
capitalists, the government and the
I rade unions of the skilled workers,

I lie Knights of Labor was sup-
pressed at the end of the '80's, and
in the '90's its remnants, which had
lost the support of the masses, be-
came converted into reactionary Uto-
pian groups that stewed in their own
juice. The master of the situation
from then on was the American Fed-
eration of Labor, the organization of
the skilled workers.

After having been finally estab-
lished in 1886, the American Feder-
ation of Labor, led by Samuel Gom-
pers, John Mitchell, Strasser and
others, at first flirted, though very
platonically, with Socialism, but
soon forgot its youthful infatuation.

At the basis of its theory and
practice the American Federation of
Labor laid down the following series
of principles:

1. The recognition of the inde-
■structability of capitalism. The
struggle for the every-day interests
of the trade union members within
the framework of existing society.

At the end of the nineteenth cen-
tury the unoccupied land in the
United States had been practically
exhausted and the workingman was
no longer able to take up farming
and become a property owner. How
did the leaders of the American
Federation of Labor react to this
new situation? "The wage worker
has now reconciled himself to the
fact that he must remain a wage
worker to the end of his life," wrote
John Mitchell, the vice-president of
the American Federation of Labor,
at the beginning of the twentieth
century. "He has abandoned the
hope for the future state in which
he would become a capitalist (why
necessarily a capitalist and not a
member of the Socialist Common-
wealth?- — L. R.) so that his aspira-

lions .ire limited to bhe desire that

he as a worker should receive a cum

pensation commenmrable with his

work." Fair pay for a fair day's
work — this formula expressed the
entire concern of the trade union
chiefs.

Replying to unjust charges of
support of Socialist theories, ad-
vanced against the American Feder-
ation of Labor by Professor iLaugh-
lin, Gompers wrote in the official or-
gan of the Federation: "The unions
have supported no other theory ex-
cept the one which says that labor
is entitled to reasonable pay, a rea-
sonable working day and human
conditions of labor The litera-
ture of the trade unions is not social-
istic. Ask the Socialist leaders."

2. Class cooperation. "Hostility
between labor and capital is not a
necessity," Mitchell's argument con-
tinues. "The one cannot exist with-
out the other. Capital is accumu-
lated and materialized work, while
the ability to work is a form of cap-
ital. There is even no necessary
contrast of principle between the
worker and the capitalist. Both are
men with human virtues and vices,
and both strive to receive more than
their just share. But upon a closer
examination the interest of the one
appears to be the interest of the
other, and welfare of the one the
welfare of the other." Mitchell saw
the purpose of his book as that of
convincing the capitalists to treat the
workers "as tolerantly and decently
as the latter treat them."

Following the principle of class
cooperation, Gompers and Mitchell
joined in 1901 the American Civic
Federation, a capitalist body of-
ficially designated to settle disputes
between labor and capital, while in

reality organised tot the pm;pof< of

fighting the revolutionary labor

movement. Gompers and Mitchell
received from the American Civic
Federation six thousand dollars per
year each. Gompers was very proud
of his official connection . with the
Civic Federation and always empha-
sized his full title: "President of the
American Federation of Labor and
Vice-President of the American
Civic Federation."

3. Purely economic methods of
struggle. "What must be cured — the
economic, social or political life?"
Gompers asks in the American Fed-
erattionist in September, 1902. "If
the economic life is to be cured it
must be done by economic and not
by any other methods." To be sure,
the American Federation of Labor
was by no means non-political; it
merely opposed the independent po-
litical labor movement, preferring to
make election agreements with this
or that capitalist party and secure
pledges to defend trade union inter-
ests in Congress (on the principle
of "Punish your enemies and re-
ward your friends.")

4. The craft principle of organiz-
ation. Every craft had its union.
Paragraph 2 of the constitution of
the Federation provided for "the
foundation of national and interna-
tional unions, strictly observing the
autonomy of each trade, and facili-
tating the development and consoli-
dation of similar organizations.*

5. High initiation and membership
fees. In January, 1900, Gompers
wrote a complete treatise in an at-
tempt "to prove by all means the fa-
tal results of the non-establishment
of high dues and proper revenues."
The system of high dues had a
double object. Firstly, it helped to

6

i« immense funds which were
used for relief and insurance pur-
pose!) secondly, with their aid the
I null unions firmly closed their
dm. is to the poorly paid workers,
unruly element which constant-
I \ disturbed the principle of brother-
li< « ii I between labor and capital, and
dragged the trade unions into
itrikea which exhausted trade union
fundi.

<». The struggle against colored
Workers, who tended to degrade the
Standard of living of white Amer-
ican workers; the consolidation of
the privileged position of the white
Americans.

By this policy the leaders of the
American Federation of Labor ar-
rived at a situation in which ninety
per cent of the workers remained
outside the labor organizations and
completely at the mercy of capitalist
exploitation. But what are the suf-
ferings of the vast masses of the
workers to the Gomperses? They
were perfectly indifferent to the
contempt and hatred with which the
revolutionary workers regarded
them. But what pride Gompers took
in the praise which the capitalists
showered upon the craft unions and
their leaders!

"For ten years I bitterly fought
organized labor," Gompers quotes
Potter Palmer. "It cost me a good
deal over a million dollars to learn
that there is no more skilful, brainy,
devoted work than the one which is
governed by an organization whose
officials are level-headed men with
the same standard "

Melville E. Engels, the chairman
of the board of directors of four
great railroads, said, "It seems to
me that your trade agreement offers

the same protection to capital as to
labor."

Senator Mark A. Hanna, capital-
ist and politician, said, "Organize
for no other purpose than for the
mutual benefit of the employer and
worker; do not organize in the

spirit of antagonism I found

the labor organizations prepared and
willing to meet us more than half
way." The same Hanna called the
leaders of the craft unions "lieuten-
ants of the captains of industry."

It was under these conditions that
De Leon developed his activity.

Ill,

■Daniel De Leon was born in
Venezuela on December 14, 1852,
iand was the son of a prosperous doc-
tor. He was educated in Europe
(Germany and Holland) f where he
studied modern and ancient lan-
guages, history, philosophy and
mathematics. At the (age of twenty
De Leon graduated from the uni-
versity and soon went to the United
States where he engaged in teach-
ing and writing. In New York, De
Leon enrolled in Columbia Univer-
sity, where he studied law. Upon
graduating from the university he
acted for six years as assistant pro-
fessor of international law in the
same college. De Leon's academic
career began brilliantly, thanks to
his extensive and international edu-
cation and oratorical gifts. He be-
came very popular among the stu-
dents and with the university ad-
ministration, and was soon to gain
the chair of full professor.

But this academic career ended
just as dramatically as it began. In
the middle of the '80's De Leon be-

8

came closely Interested la Hh- Labor
and Socialist movement. l>> 1888 he
joined ilu- Knights of Labor and
later Tell under the Influence of the
American Utopian, Edward Bellamy.
Soon, however, the Utopian reform
movement ceased to satisfy De
Leon, who made a thorough iand se-
rious study of Marxism in which he
found the answer to all the social
problems which interested him,

The university administration
then began to give attention to the
fact that De Leon's lectures were
becoming imbued with Socialist
ideas. A conversation followed be-
tween De Leon and the president
of the university, and when the lat-
ter 'began to explain to De Leon that
science was neutral and apolitical,
De Leon at once .submitted his resig-
nation.*

From that time on De Leon com-
pletely broke with university circles
and devoted himself entirely to the
labor movement, placing all of his
unusual gifts at its service.

In 1890 De Leon joined the So-
cialist Labor Party which adhered
to a Marxian position, and thanks to

Ms extensive learning, will powerj
fanatical devotion to the working
class, and oratorical and literary
gifts, he soon gained a leading posi-
tion in this party. Thenceforth the
history of the Socialist Labor Party
became inseparable from the politi-
cal biography of Daniel De Leon,
just as the history of the C.P.S.U.
is closely connected with the name
of Lenin.

In a brief sketch it is impossible,
of , course, to describe the entire
twenty-five years of De Leon's So-
cialist work, just ias it is impossible
in such a short space to give a full
idea of his theory of "industrial-
ism," which constitutes a retreat
from Marxism in the direction of
syndicalism,** or, of bis theory of
the State, in which De Leon, one
year before the first Russian .Revo-
lution, anticipated some elements of
the Soviet system. We will also
have to pass by the weak points of
De Leon's policy which suffered
from the spirit of sectarianism.
[This sounds curious, coming from
an adherent of that "ultra- sectarian,"
Lenin. — Publishers.'] In this article

*"Daniel De Leon held a prize lectureship at Columbia University for two succes-
sive terms, 1883-1889. The lectureship was in the Department of International Law,
during which time he was a member of the faculty of the School of Political Science
of the University, the applicants for their degrees having to pass examination before
him also in his branch. The remuneration was $25 for each of twenty lectures to be
delivered in one term— three months. He was not dismissed, nor dropped. He left at
the expiration of his second term because he did not care to continue in the same posi-
tion, as was proposed to him, but demanded the permanent position of full professor, as
had' been promised him, but which was withheld on the ground of his joining the labor
movement in 1886."^From Letter Box answer by De Leon, Daily People, Oct. 9, 1904.

**It is preposterous of Professor Raisky to claim that De Leon's "theory of 'indus-
trialism' constitutes a retreat from Marxism in the direction of syndicalism." Indus-
trialism, or to put it correctly, Industrial Unionism is implicit in Marxism, so implicit,
indeed, that to have omitted it as the central feature of the Socialist movement in Amer-
ica would have constituted "a retreat from Marxism," with social reformism and Gom-
persism as the inevitable alternative. For just as Gompersism is the logical concomitant
of petty bourgeois reformism, so Industrial Unionism constitutes the crowning climax,

9

we will limit ourselves to a descrip-
tion of De Leon's resolute and dif-
ficult struggle against opportunism
in llit- country of "classic" opportun-
ism, in the country of the most back-
ward labor movement.

American capitalism had a num-
ber of Important adviantages over the
European capitalist countries. Pos-
sessing an abundance of raw mate-
rials and clump fuel, the American
bourgeoisie 'was able to develop a
peculiarly American rate of capital
accumulation. This was so also be-
cause the entire globe constantly
supplied it with labor power. The
United States did not have to make
any outlays for the training of
skilled labor, as the European capi-
talist countries were forced to do,
but largely received this labor from
outside. In addition, owing to the
presence of vast unoccupied
stretches of land in the country,
there was practically no absolute
ground rent and the bourgeoisie was
not forced to divide the surplus
value with the landlords; thus the
American employers were richer
than their European rivals.

The -United States is one of the
youngest capitalist countries and
therefore made use of all the latest
technical appliances. The American
bourgeoisie wag impelled constantly
In improve the technic of production
by the high price of labor. With the
aid of the most modern machinery

and the speed-up system the Amer-
ican capitalists squeezed out of the
workers more surplus value than Eu-
ropean capitalists. Two American
workers produced as much as five
British. Upon establishing a mo-
nopoly within the country, the Amer-
ican capitalists protected the domes-
tic market from foreign competition
by a system of high tariffs and con-
verted the vast country into a field
of monopoly super-profit.

All this enabled the American
bourgeoisie to place the workers in
better conditions than those prevail-
ing in Europe. In the United States
the highest wages have been histori-
cally established. Without this con-
dition the bourgeoisie would not
have been able to keep the necessary
number of workers in the industrial
centers, in the factories, mines and
railways. The presence of free land
made itself strongly felt.

"But if the American proletariat
represented a peculiar aristocracy
compared with the workers in other
lands, among the American proleta-
riat itself there grew up a section of
highly skilled workers (chiefly
Americans) whom the bourgeoisie
placed* in specially privileged condi-
tions and who broke away from the
rest of the working masses. It was
this labor aristocracy which supplied
the basis for Gompersism.

The awakening of the el ass consci-
ousness of the American workers

the very efflorescence of revolutionary Marxism. It is, in fact, the form "at last dis-
covered under which [in ultra-capitalist countries] to work out the economic emancipa-
tion of labor." (Marx.) Moreover, in stigmatizing De Leon's Industrial Union theory
as a retreat from Marxism, Raisky must accept the logic of his contention by including
Lenin as one who also "retreated" from Marxism, for it was Lenin who recognized De
Leon's Industrial Union'Und Industrial Government theory as the only contribution to
Marxian thought, adding: "Industrial Unionism is the basic thing, that is what we are
building." — Publishers.

10

ilao hindered bj the following
factors. The country had a eonsid

e cable amouiil of free land which
served as a refuge to the unein
ployed and discontented workers.
True, by I lie end of the nineteenth
century there was practically no
lice land left, but its existence in
the past left a definite impress upon
the psychology of the American pro-
letariat.

The same effect was exercised by
the democratic system of government
and the competition between the
two political parties. In the chase
for votes both of these rival parties
made some concessions to the work-
ers and corrupted their conscious-
ness. Finally, the ethnographic di-
versity of the American proletariat
also had its effect. The American
born white workers enjoyed better
conditions compared with not only
the Negroes, Chinese and other col-
ored workers, but also the white
foreign-born workers. In this way
the bourgeoisie strove to imbue the
white American workers with a be-
lief in the identity of the national
interests of all Americans as op-
posed to those of all other races and
nations.

In consequence of all of these fac-
tors the American labor movement
became more backward, conservative
and opportunistic than labor in Eu-
rope. In the United States there has
historically developed a sharp con-
trast between the objective maturity
of the country for Socialism and the
backwardness of the subjective fac-
tor.

IV.

In his theoretical and practical
activities De Leon proceeded on the
belief that the Socialist revolution

iniisi begin i" 1 1"' l touted SI ates, ' '"
country of classic capitalism, wJm n
ill, absence of any elements of fen

dalism has resulted in the highest
type of capitalist relations, and
where, therefore, the objective con-
ditions for the Socialist revolution
were more ripe than in any other
capitalist country.

If this is so, then it is necessary
to use all forces for the preparation
of the subjective factor. It is neces-
sary to awaken the classconscious-
ness of the proletariat, to organize
it on an economic and political basis,
and lead it to a strong attack on the
capitalist fortress. This makes it
necessary, first of all, to rearrange
the forces of the Party, this "head
of the lance," this "head of the col-
umn."

"In all revolutionary movement,"
De Leon said in his address "Re-
form or Revolution," in January,
1896, "as in the storming of for-
tresses, the thing depends upon the
head of the column — upon that mi-
nority that is so intense in its con-
victions, so soundly based on its
principles, so determined in its ac-
tion, that it .carries the masses with
it, storms the breastworks and cap-
tures the fort. Such a head of the
column must be our Socialist organ-
ization to the whole column of the

American proletariat The army

that is to conquer it is the army of
the proletariat, the head of whose
column must consist of the intrepid
Socialist organization that has
earned their love, their respect,
their confidence."

In the social cataclysm which is
inevitable in the near future, all the
petty bourgeois and reformist or-
ganizations will be swept away un-
der the debris of the old world. Only

11

the stalwart Socialist [Labor] Party
will firmly stand over the ruins; it
alone will be capable of leading the
imasses, "but only upon revolution-
ary lines can it achieve this; upon
lines of reform it can never be vic-
torious."

De iLeon proclaimed a merciless
war upon reformism. Reforms, he
said, mark a change of the outer
forms only, while the inner sub-
stance remains (unchanged. A poodle
may be shorn to look like a lion, but
it (still remains a dog. Yet the
wealthy and powerful American
bourgeoisie has fully appreciated
the demoralizing force of conces-
sions and sops, while the capitalist
politicians know the power of re-
form which serves as a safety valve,
giving vent to the revolutionary
sentiments of the workers, and as a
trap into which the reformists are
easily enticed by the bait.

iDe Leon considered it a "fatal il-
lusion" to hold that capitalism can
be gradually destroyed with the aid
of palliatives. The tiger will de-
fend the tips of his mustache with
the same ferocity that he will de-
fend his very heart. This is an in-
stinctive process. A sop is an "opi-
ate prescribed for appeasement."
"The revolutionist," iDe Leon wrote
in his remarkable work, "Two Pages
from Roman History" (April,
1902'), ''must never throw sops at
the revolutionary element. The in-
stant he does, he places himself at
the mercy of the foe; he can always
be out-sopped. And so was Gaius
'Gracchus. The proposition for
twelve colonies with which the patri-
ciate answered Gaius's proposition
for three, completely neutralized the
latter, leaving the 'honors' on the
side of the patriciate. Nursed at

(lie teat of the sop, the Roman prole-
tariat decamped to where they could
get the largest quantities of that
commodity. And that, more than
any other thing, stripped Gaius of
his forces. Once he was deserted
and downed, the bigger sop of
twelve colonies never materialized. It
had answered its narcotic purpose,
and was dropped."

As a striking example of blindness
displayed by reformists, De Leon
cited the telegram received by the
Milwaukee Social Democratic Her-
ald from Chicago on April 2, 1902:
"Two-thirds majority cast for mu-
nicipal ownership," the (telegram
read, "shows that Socialism is in the
air."

The labor movement in Chicago
gained considerable force; the soil
there was ploughed up deeper than
in New York, De Leon says; prob-
ably for this reason the capitalist
politicians of Chicago were more
"skilful" and "mobile" even than
their New York colleagues. But even
in New York individual politicians
resorted to the "municipal owner-
ship" plank for the purpose of
camouflage.

"Unterrified Socialist agitation
has familiarized the public mind
with Socialist aspirations, though
still only in a vague way. The poli-
tician, being 'broad' besides 'quick,'
has no objection to polling 'Social-
istic' votes. Being 'quick' besides
'broad,' he has no objection to the
performance if he can indulge in it
by giving the shadow for the sub-
stance ; all the less if he can thereby
run Socialism into the ground. 'Mu-
nicipal ownership' lends itself pecu-
liarly to such purposes. It sounds
'Socialistic'; and yet we know the
term can conceal the archest anti-

labor scheme. 1 1 \$ nursery i tie i he
ory concerning his God-gives otpa

City bo run indiisl ri< s having snllYied
.shipwreck, the capitalist can find 8
snug harbor of refuge in 'municipal
ownership.' It is an ideal capitalist

sop to catch the sopable And

yet this Social Democrat rejoices:
'Two-thirds majority cast for mu-
nicipal ownership shows that Social-
ism is in the air.'

"'In the air!'" De Leon mock-
ingly agrees. "Very much 'in the air'
- — everywhere, except on Chicago
soil."

Any sop thrown by a reformist to
the proletariat is like the skin of a
banana placed under the feet of the
proletariat, which will cause it to
slip and fall. "Not sops, but the
unconditional surrender of capital-
ism, is the battle-cry of the Prole-
tarian Revolution."

Up to the '90's the Socialist La-
bor Party developed very slowly,
both quantitatively and qualitative-
ly. 'The party consisted almost ex-
clusively of foreigners, particulaTly
Germans. It was characteristic that
the central organ of the party was
published not in English, but in Ger-
man. The influence of the party
among the American born workers
was extremely weak.

Ideologically the party was only
beginning to get on its feet. Only
in 1889 was the demand for the
material assistance of the workers'
associations by the State omitted
from the program, a demand which
was copied from the German Lassal-
lians or, to be more exact, imported
into America by the German immi-
grants. On the fundamental ques-

i [on confronting bhe pari v. naaii i\

the question of I lie methods and

platfonoi by which it could en
trend) Itself in American soil and
pave the way to the masses of na-
tive workers, two tendencies fought
each other. One believed that it
was necessary to give the main at-
tention to Socialist propaganda dur-
ing elections, ignoring the trade
union movement; the other saw the
principal task of the party in the
trade union movement, and neglect-
ed the political activity.

De Leon opened a struggle
against these narrow, anti-Marxian
tendencies, insisting that the eco-
nomic and political struggle must be
conducted simultaneously. T\

Under De Leon the central organ,
of the party for the first time began,
to be published in English, first as a |
weekly (The People) and nine years
later as a daily and a weekly (the
Daily People and the Weekly Peoj
pie). The newspaper was written
not only for the workers but in a
considerable measure also by the
workers whom De Leon, as editor,
attracted as correspondents. With
the aid of the newspaper ably edited
by De Leon, the party battered its
way to the bulk of the American
proletariat, educating and organiz-
ing its advance guard.

The triumph of imperialism, the
taking up of the offensive against
the masses of the proletariat by the
monopolistic plutocracy created a
favorable basis for an extension of
the Socialist movement in the United
States. In the '90's the party, led
by De Leon, entered on the broad
historical highway.

However, the new conditions gave
rise to new difficulties. De Leon's
determination to convert the party

12

13

345464

into a revolutionary militant van-
guard of the proletariat met with
resistance within the party, which
led at the end of the century to a
split and a segregation between the
revolutionary and opportunist ele-
ments in American Socialism. Dur-
ing 1900-1901 the elements who
were dissatisfied with the inner-
party regime and the tactical prin-
ciples defended by De Leon, consti-
tuted themselves into a new Social-
ist party. At the head of this par-
ty were Morris Hillquit, Victor Ber-
ger and others.

Originally, the differences be-
tween De Leon's followers and the
supporters of Hillquit and Berger
were caused by inner-party ques-
tions and the attitude to be taken to-
ward the trade unions. During the
twentieth century the two parties
drifted further and further apart,
each of them developing its own
conception of the structure of the
future society, of the main roads
leading to Socialism, and the effect
of parliamentarism.

VI.

Hillquit, one of the representa-
tives of the anti-De Leonist wing of
the Socialist Labor Party, who sub-
sequently became the head of the
Socialist party, constantly com-
plained about "the fanatical sever-
ity (of De Leon) in the enforce-
ment of discipline."

Indeed, De Leon was absolutely
unrelenting in the struggle against
intellectualist individualism and in
the fight Ifor proletarian discipline.
This logically followed from De
Leon's entire revolutionary posi-
tion. If modern America is a bat-
tlefield, if the proletariat is one of

the armies acting in this field, then
the vanguard of the. revolutionary
class will solve its historical mission
only if it enters the battle in full
fighting readiness.

A comparion between De Leon
and "Lenin naturally presents itself
to one's mind. iDe Leon's views on
the inner-party question resemble
'Lenin's even in the style in which
they are expressed.

In his "Reform; or Revolution,"
which we have already cited, De
Leon draws the following parallel
between a revolutionist and a re-
formist:

"The modern revolutionist, i.e.,
the Socialist, must, in the first place,
by reason of the sketch I presented
to you, upon the development of the
'State, necessarily work in organiza-
tion, with all that that implies. In
this you have the first characteristic
that distinguishes the revolutionist
from the reformer; the reformer
spurns organization; his symbol is
'Five Sore Fingers on a Hand' — far
apart from one another

"Again, the modern revolutionist
knows that in order to accomplish
results or promote principle, there
must be unity of action. He knows
that, if we do not go in a body and
hang together, we are bound to hang
separate. Hence, you will ever see
the revolutionist submit to the will

of the majority Hence, also,

you will never find the revolutionist
putting himself above the organiza-
tion. The opposite conduct is an
unmistakable earmark of reform-
ers

" . . The highest individual free-
dom must go hand in hand with col-
lective freedom; and none such is
possible without a central directing
authority.

14

" . . . . The n I'ormiT, for in. I :iimv,

is ever vaporing againsl 'tyranny*
and yet watch him; give him "•<>]"'
enough and you will always see him
straining in ibe the top man in the
shebang, tin- man on horseback, the
autocrat, whose whim shall be law. .

"... The scatter-brained reform-
er is ruled by a centrifugal, the rev-
olutionist by a centripetal force."

De Leon never sacrificed quality
to quantity, principle to numbers.
"The notion implied in the words of
our friend who asked the question,
the notion that NUMBERS is the
important thing and not SOUND-
NESS, often leads to bizarre re-
sults," he said. This principle, as ap-
plied to the party, prompted De
Leon mercilessly to drive out of its
ranks all those who in any way re-
treated from its fundamental prin-
ciples, for, he maintained, "Tamper
with discipline, allow this member
[of the Party] to do as he likes,
that .member to slap the Party con-
stitution in the face, yonder member
to fuse with reformers, this other
to forget the nature of the class
struggle and to act up to his forget-
ifulness — allow that, keep such 're-
formers' in your ranks and you have
stabbed your movement at its vi-
tals."

De Leon's opponents frequently
charged him with intolerance and
irreconcilability. But De Leon was
by no means inclined to consider
these qualities vices: "intolerance"
and "irreconcilability" he regarded
as necessary conditions to the suc-
cess of the revolution, while "any
action that, looking toward 'gentle-
ness' or 'tolerance/ sacrifices the
logic of the situation, unnerves the
Revolution."

De Leon assumed a definite posi-

I ion dii I lie queSl inn of llir |> I

ownership of the press. hike Lenin,
De Leon attached enormous agita

tional and organizational value to
the press which he regarded as "the
most potent weapon of the move-
ment." And since the press, in his
opinion, is not only a prerequisite,
but also a product of the growth of
the movement, requiring sacrifices in
money, and long and great efforts,
the party which has forged this pow-
erful weapon must be confident that
it will not be wrested from its hands
and turned against it. De Leon,
therefore, demanded vigilant control
by the party over its press.

The constitution of the Socialist
Labor Party demanded that every
member of the party should regular-
ly subscribe to its organ, with the
exception of those members who had
no party organ in their own lan-
guage. No member of the party
and no local committee had the
right to publish a newspaper with-
out the sanction of the National
Executive Committee of the party.
The latter controlled also the con-
tents of all the party publications.

A different view was held by the >
Socialist pa^ty, which even up to
1914 had no newspaper of its own.
Only in that year was the American
Socialist [converted into the organ of y
the party, published by the 'Centra
Executive Committee in Chicago. At
the same time the old rule, by which
any member of the party or any lo-
cal was entitled to publish his or its
own press organ without the control
or direction of the center, was pre-
served.

Autonomy or centralization? This
question of mner-org;miz;ilion of
the party also served as an object of
differences between the Socialist La-

15

< t

bor Party and the Socialist party.
While the latter allowed the state
organizations autonomous rights, the
constitution of the Socialist Labor
Party, which was based upon the
principle of centralism, gave to the
National Executive Committee the
power to expel any State Executive
Committee.

De Leon explained the source of
differences over this question as fol-
lows: The United States is a coun-
try nearly as large as all of Europe
and does not constitute an economi-
cally uniform body. Capitalism has
developed in every direction, but the
country is so young that the primi-
tive possibilities crop up at times
even where capitalism has become
deeply enrooted and, besides, the
country is so vast that the primitive
conditions still prevail over com-
plete regions. Such a diversity of
conditions, which testifies to differ-
ent stages of economic development,
inevitably breeds standards of spir-
itual development. A strong organ-
ization depends not only upon an
identity of interests but also upon
the degree to which these interests
are developed.

". . . . A proletarian element, that
still has strong navel-string con-
nections with bourgeois interests,
cannot be as solidly welded as an or-
ganization of proletarians with
whom such navel-string ligaments
have been sundered." The non-pro-
letarian elements which are attract-
ed by both proletarian elements will,
by virtue of the law of natural se-
lection, acquire the (characteristics
which belong to the respective or-
ganization. "The less class-devel-
oped a revolutionary element is, the
less homogeneous it will be; the less
homogeneous it is, the more torpid

will be its sense of sacrifice; the
more torpid its sense of sacrifice, the
less focalized will be its efforts. In-
versely, the more class-developed a
revolutionary element is, the more
homogeneous will it be; the more
homogeneous it is, the more active
will be its sense of .sacrifice; the
more active its sense of sacrifice, all
the more focalized will be its ef-
forts."

The former represent the plain of
the modern labor movement, and the
elassconscious elements its moun-
tain. By virtue of its social nature
the organization of the mountain
elements conducts its work in a con-
centrated manner and naturally as-
sumes a centralized form, while the
elements of the plain move separ-
ately and their organization assumes
the form of autonomy.

VII.

De Leon's struggle against organ-
izational opportunism was closely
connected with his struggle against
opportunism in the economic and po-
litical domains.

De Leon carried out a tremendous
work in cleaning the Augean stables
of the trade union movement in
which opportunism flourished with
particular gorgeousness.

At the beginning of 1898 the tex-
tile workers of New Bedford, Mas-
sachusetts, lost a long and bitterly
fought strike conducted in the name
of a number of immediate demands.
On February 11, De Leon delivered
in New Bedford an address entitled
"What Means This Strike?" in
which he attempted to explain to
the workers "the principles of
healthy organization" and "refute
the theory that worker and capitalist

Id

arc brothers." Upon ihowlng Hill

with the aid of theoretical argu
ments, illustrated and backed up by
figures taken from llie workers' own
lives, De Leon scathingly ridiculed
the comparison of labor and capital
with the Siamese twins: wherever
one went, the other followed; when
one was happy, the pulse of the
other quickened; when one caught
cold the other sneezed in unison
with him; when one died the other
followed him into the next world
five minutes later. "..Do we find,"
De Leon asked the New Bedford
textile workers, "that to be the re-
lation of the workingman and the
capitalist? Do you find that the fat-
ter the capitalist, the fatter also
grow the workingmen? Is not your
experience rather that the wealthier
the capitalist, the poorer are the
workingmen? That the more mag-
nificent and prouder the residences
of the capitalist, the dingier and
humbler become those of the work-
ingmen? That the happier the life
of the capitalist's wife, the greater
the opportunities of his children for
enjoyment and education, the
heavier becomes the cross borne by
the workingmen's wives, while their
children are crowded more and
more from the schools and deprived
of the pleasures of childhood? Is
that your experience, or is it not?
(Voices all over the hall: 'It is!'
and applause.)

"The pregnant point that under-
lies- these pregnant facts," De Leon
continued, "is that, between the
working class and the capitalist
class there is an irrepressible con-
flict, a class struggle for life. No
glib tongued politician can vault
over it, no capitalist professor or of-
ficial statistician can argue it away;

no enpilalisl. parson eati veil [| , no
labor faker tan .straddle il ; no ri
form' architect can bridge il
over "

And this struggle must end
either in the complete subjection of
the working class or in the destruc-
tion of the capitalist class. "Thus
you perceive that the theory on which
your 'pure and simple' trade organ-
izations are grounded, and on
which you went into this strike, is
false. There being no 'common in-
terests,' but only HOSTILE IN-
TERESTS, between the capitalist
class and the working class." De
Leon emphasized again and again.
It is a hopeless struggle with the-'
aid of which "healthy relations" are'
to be established between the irre-
concilably antagonistic classes.

Upon further exposing the secret
of the primitive accumulation of
capital and drawing a picture of the
development of capitalism which
leads to the replacement of skilled
labor by machinery, the growth of
the reserve labor army and the
degradation of the standard of liv-
ing of the bulk of the working class,
and ridiculing the theory that the
capitalists are the natural captains
of industry, De Leon asked: Per-
haps the capitalists are entitled to
surplus value as inventors? But this,
too, is a great mistake. The capital-
ists simply exploit the technical
genius of others, using their distress
and buying for a song the fruits of
their hard mental labor. As a strik-
ing example of the acquisition by
the capitalists of other people's in
ventions, De Leon cited the case of
the employes of the Bonsack Ma
chine Company who were noted for
their unusual inventiveness. Anxious
to utilize their invention* without

17

paying for them, the company locked
out all of its men and then forced
them to sign a contract by which all
their future inventions would belong
to the company. A certain worker
invented as a result of six months of
hard work, during which he did not
receive a single cent from the com-
pany, a valuable machine for the
production of cigarette cases. The
worker himself patented his inven-
tion. But the federal court, before
which the Bonsack Machine Com-
pany took up the case, issued an
award in favor of the company.

This Tact, as reported by De
Leon, caused a storm of indignation
in the hall. From all sides came the
cries .of "Shame! Shame!" De Leon
then proceeded further to unfold his
propagandist task.

". . . . 'Shame'?" He repeated the
cries of the audience. "Say not
'Shame' ! He who himself ap-
plies the torch to his own
house has no cause to cry
'Shame!' when the flames consume
it. Say rather 'Natural!' and smit-
ing your own breasts say 'Ours is
the fault!' Having elected into pow-
er the Democratic, Republican,
Free Trade, Protection, Silver or
Gold platform of the capitalist
class, the working class has none but
itself to blame, if the official
lackeys of that class turn against
the working class the public powers
put into their hands."

By this chain of arguments De
Leon helped the audience to realize
the basic "principle of healthy or-
ganization/' the fundamental ele-
ments of Marxism, which were as-
tonishing revelations to the over-
whelming majority of American
workers.

These principles arc as follows:
Firstly, the workers will gain their
freedom only after abolishing the
capitalist system of private property
and socializing the means of produc-
tion. Secondly, the workers must
wrest the power from the claws of
the capitalist class. Thirdly, the
workers must not regard politics as
a private affair; politics, like eco-
nomics, is the common business of
all the workers.

In this way De Leon educated the
working masses with a view to free-
ing them from the influence of the
opportunists.

De Leon attached tremendous im-
portance to the trade unions. He
saw in them not only an instrument
of labor's self-defense against the
capitalist offensive, but also one of
the most important and necessary
instruments for the overthrow of the
capitalist system. The labor move-
ment, he maintained, is the lance
which will strike down capitalism;
the party is the sharp point of this
lance, and the trade union is its
shaft. Without the latter the lance
cannot possess the necessary stabil-
ity, without strong, classconscious
and properly organized unions the
party is useless. Only in view of
the existing backwardness of the
trade union movement in the United
States and its division, is the bour-
geoisie able to resort to threats of
a general lockout in order to bring
pressure upon the working class
voters, as was the case in 1896
when, with the aid of this method,
the bourgeoisie forced the election
to the presidency of its henchman
MeKinley, and forced the defeat,
not even of a Socialist, but of the
(radical Democrat, Bryan. The im-
portance of iclassconscious Industrial

18

Unions thus co&flfti alio hi bhal

llicv must establish, al I lie proper

time, control over production and

ln<-k iiui i lie bourgeoisie.

Some time around 1904 — when
De Leon's particular system of ideas
took final form — De Leon began to
regard the trade unions as the nuclei
of the future society, as organiza-
tions which would take over the di-
rection of the economic life of so-
ciety a fter the revolution.

But the trade unions will be able
to solve both their immediate and
historical problems only if they
adopt different ideas and a different
system of organization. The craft
union, De Leon urged, appeared
during the early days of capitalism
and represented an unarmed hand
which the workers instinctively
raised to ward off the capitalist
blows. Since then capitalism has
grown to manhood, has changed its
structure and become converted into
a nationally and universally organ-
ized monopoly organism, while the
trade unions continue in the same
infantile condition and preserve
their antiquated, archaic organiza-
tional form. They represent obso-
lete weapons, as completely useless
as a nineteenth century cannon in
the face of a modern navy. The
craft union is like a pint which can-
not hold three gallons of labor. The
trade unions must free themselves
of their narrow craft egoism and re-
organize themselves along industrial
lines embracing all the workers in
the given industry as well as those
temporarily or permanently unem-
ployed. The Industrial Union which
connects the economic struggle with
the political struggle, the immediate
aims with the historical objects, is

power, while ''Craft unionist) laru

impotence.

" Under craft unionism,

only one craft marches into the bat-
tlefield at a time. By their idly
looking on, the other crafts scab it
upon the combatant. What with that
and the likewise idle onlooking of
those divisions of the workers who
man the commissary department, so
to speak, of the capitalist class, the
class struggle presents, under craft
unionism, the aspect of petty riots
at which the empty stomachs and
empty hands of the working class
are pitted against the full ones o£
the employing class." De Leon was*
fond of comparing the classconsci-
ous, industrially organized trade-
union movement with a fist, and ther
craft movement (by organization*
and ideology, the so-called "pare
and simple" trade union movement)
with spread-out fingers fit only to
serve as a fan to drive flies off the
face of the capitalist class

In the craft union movement De
Leon saw the greatest obstacle to
the victory of Socialism. "Capitalist
development," he maintained, "de-
liberately seeks to perpetuate [the
union] in its obsolete craft union
shape as the strongest bulwark for
the continuance of capitalism."

[The Socialist Labor Party char-
acterized "the American Federation
of Labor and kindred organizations
as the representatives of the reac
tionary anti-Socialist craft union
movement and as an obstacle in the
path for the improvement of Condi
tions and the emancipation of [a
bor."

The Socialist party, as officially
represented, occupied in fact a po
sition of neutrality as regards trade

19

unionism. That position had been
formally ratified at the 1912 conven-
tion. The trade union resolution at
that meeting declares, among the
rest: "That the party has neither
the right nor the desire to interfere
in any controversies which may ex-
ist within the labor union movement
over questions of form of organiza-
tion or technical methods of action
in the industrial struggle. [What
language! — L. R.], but trusts to the
labor organizations themselves to
solve these questions."

De Leon stamped this position a
product of opportunism and a direct
betrayal of working class interests.
"Neutrality toward trade unions

is equivalent to 'neutrality

toward the machinations of the cap-
italist class,' " declared the follow-
ers of De Leon. "Its practical part
[of the burning question of trade
unionism]," said De Leon, "implies
struggle, dauntless struggle against,
and war to the knife with that com-
bination of ignoramuses, ripened
into reprobates — the labor faker
who seeks to coin the helplessness
of the proletariat into cash for him-
self, and the 'intellectual' (iGod
save the mark!) who has so super-
ficial a knowledge of things that the
mission of unionism is a closed book
to him; who believes the union will
'fritter out of existence' ; who, con-
sequently, is actually against the
union, all his pretenses of love for
it notwithstanding; and who mean-
time imagines he can promote So-
cialism by howling with pure and

simple wolves that keep the working
class divided, and, consequently, bar
the path for the triumph of Social-
ism, or, as the capitalist Wall Street
Journal well expressed it, 'consti-
tutes the bulwark of modern society
against Socialism.' "

The Party, taught De Leon,
"must either inspirit the union with
the broad, political purpose, and
thus dominate it by warring on the
labor faker and on the old guild no-
tions that hamstring the labor move-
ment, or it is itself dragged down
to the selfish trade interests of the
economic movement, and finally
drawn into the latter's subservience
to the capitalist interests that ever
fasten themselves to the selfish trade
interests on which the labor faker,
or labor lieutenant of the capitalist
class, thrives."]*

Originally, De Leon supported
the policy of boring from within.
Thus, under his leadership, the par-
ty with the aid of the Jewish Labor
Union which wag under De Leon's
influence, captured in 1894 the New
York district organization of the
Knights of Labor. At the Knights
of Labor convention in the follow-
ing year the radicals succeeded in
defeating the reactionary leader of
the Order, Pbwderley, who was op-
posed to a militant strike policy and
supported peaceful cooperative de-
velopment, but his place was taken
by a certain Sovereign, who Was a
worthy successor of his reactionary
predecessor.

In 1893 the United States was

*The part in brackets which, as we see, refers specifically to the Socialist Labor
Party was simply and conveniently eliminated from the text published in the Communist,
thus proving the Anarcho-Communist as unscrupulous and narrowly censorious, and as
ignorantly prejudiced against, and fearful of revolutionary Marxism as his bourgeois
and clerical confreres. — Publishers.

'

gripped by •'» serious i •comnnic crisis
which shook the entire count ry. The

number of unemployed reached bhe
unprecedented figure of 6 million.
The beginnings of the 90's were
marked by a series of big battles be-
tween the workers and trustified
capital and at the same time by a
number of disastrous defeats of the
American working class. It is suf-
ficient to mention the famous events
in Homestead where the United
States Steel Corporation, with which
the Carnegie Co. amalgamated, pro-
claimed war upon "The Amalga-
mated Union of Steel, Iron and Tin
Workers." The workers smashed up
the forces of the detective and ter-
roristic organizations which were
hired by the trust to fight the trade
union, but were themselves smashed
by the superior forces of the special
police. All of these events deeply
stirred the American working
masses.

In 1893 a group of Socialists,
headed by T. J. Morgan, made an
attempt to utilize the situation for
the organization of a mass labor
party drawing its support, like the
British Labor party, from the trade
unions. De Leon was sceptical of
the success of this attempt. He did
not believe in the possibility of con-
verting the American Federation of
Labor into an organization recogniz-
ing the principles of Socialism. The
result of Morgan's policy was that
many delegates of the A. F. of L.
convention took a stand in favor of
Morgan's resolution, and even Gom-
per« was instructed by his union to
vote for this resolution. But the
leaders of the A. F. of L. were de-
termined at all cost to disrupt the
attempt of the Socialists to drive the
trade unions to the path of the class

struggle, Gomperi himself voted
against the resolution on the ground

that the workers who favored it "did
not know what they were doing."
The further policy of Gompers's
group consisted in gaining time in
order to wade over the crisis and fi-
nally to kill any attempt to create
a class labor party. Gompers's pol-
icy was crowned with success.

The outcome of the struggle be-
tween the Socialists and the A. F.
of L. leaders for the "soul" of the
trade unions, as well as the abortive
attempt to capture the order of the
Knights of Labor, finally confirmed
De Leon in bis determination to
wage an uncompromising fight upon
the A. F. of L. and similar organiza-
tions. Beginning with 1895, De
Leon definitely abandoned the pol-
icy of "boring from within," that is,
of capturing the craft unions by
working with them, and resolutely
took up the path of dual unionism.
"The trade union leaders," De Leon
used to say, "will let you bore from
within only enough to throw you out
through that hole bored by you." At
the end of 1895 the Socialist Labor
Party, under De Leon's leadership,
organized a new trade union organ-
ization, the Socialist Trade and La-
bor Alliance, with a revolutionary
Socialist platform.

In the address already cited
above, "What Means This Strike,"
De Leon described the reasons for
the creation of the Alliance as fol-
lows: "Long did the Socialist Labor
Party and New Trade Unionists
seek to deliver this important mes-
sage ['the essential principles'] to
the broad masses of the American
proletariat, the rank and file of our
working class. But we could not
reach, we could not get at them. Be-

20

21

tween us and them there stood a sol-
id wall of ignorant, stupid and cor-
rupt labor fakers. Like men grop-
ing in a dark room for an exit, we
moved along the wall, bumping our
heads, feeling ever onwards for a
door; we made the circuit and no
passage was found. The wall was
solid. This discovery once made,
there was no way other than to bat-
ter a breach through that wall. With
the battering ram of the Socialist
Trade and Labor Alliance we ef-
fected a passage; the wall now
crumbles; at last we stand face to
face with the rank and file of the
American proletariat and we ARE
DELIVERING OUR MESSAGE
— as you may judge from the howl
that goes up from that fakers' wall
that we have broken through."

In the so-called "pure and sim-
ple" unions, that is, in the unions
which were organized along craft
lines, De Leon refused to see a part
of the labor movement. 'According-
ly, the union that is a 'Brotherhood
of Capital and Labor' concern is a
capitalist brigade; accordingly, only
the classconscious union stands
within the pale of the labor move-
ment."

>De Leon compared the craft la-
bor movement with the Czarist ar-
my. The craft union consists of
workers, and the Czarist army also
consists of toilers; in both cases the
decisive factor lies in the fact that
these-; organizations are controlled
by forces hostile to labor and serve
interests hostile - to labor. And just
as in ..Russia the toilers cannot gain
freedom without crushing the Czar-
ist army, just so in America will the
working class fail to solve its prob-
lems unless it. destroys the craft
unions. In full, De Leon's trade

union policy was described by him
a^SEpJlows :

ft "That analysis shows you that
trades organizations are essential;
they are essential to break the force
of the onslaught of the capitalist,
but this advantage is fruitful of
good only in the measure that the
organization prepares itself for the
day of final victory. Accordingly, it
'must be every Socialist's endeavor
to organize his trade. If there is an
organization of his trade in exist-
ence that is not in the hand of a la-
bor lieutenant of capital, he should
join it and wheel it into line with
the Socialist Trade and Labor Alli-
ance. If, however, the organization
is entirely in the hands of such a la-
bor lieutenant of capital ; if its mem-
bership is grown ,so fast to him and
he to them, that the one cannot be
shaken from the other; if, accord-
ingly, the organization, obedient to
the spirit of capitalism, insists upon
dividing the working class by bar-
riers more or less high and chican-
ery against the admission of all the
members of the trade who apply for
admission; if his grip of mental cor-
ruption upon it is such as to cause
a majority of its members to ap-
plaud and second his endeavors to
keep that majority at work at the
sacrifice of the minority within and
of the large majority of the trade
without — in that and in all such
cases, such an organization is not a
limb of the labor movement, it is a
limb of capitalism ; it is a GOIDD ;

it is a belated reproduction

of the old guild system!"

Such an organization, De Leon
said, is no more of a labor organiza-
tion than the Czarist army. "In
such a case the Socialist must en-
deavor to set up a bona fide labor

22

trades union and In do wlial lie can

to smash 1 1 1 1 ■ fraud."

It is characteristic that the policy
of wi ltd rawing from the reaction-
ary trade unions for the purpose of
creating clasrsconscious industrial or-
ganizations was supported not only
by the Socialist Labor Party but
also by the left wing of the Social-
ist party, including Eugene Debs,
one of the most popular leaders of
the American workers.*

The peculiar condition of the
American labor movement — 'the fact
that the tremendous majority of the
workers are unorganized, the artifi-
cial measures taken by the reaction-
ary leaders to perpetuate this
scourge of American labor — in
some cases make inevitable the pol-
icy of dual unionism. The policy
of unity at all cost cannot, under
the American conditions, always
yield favorable results (of course,
from the point of view of the rev-
olutionary proletariat). We know
that in recent years the development
of the labor movement in the United
States inevitably led to the forma-

i mil of iii'w onion ■ ( "i in < (Hi 1 1
workers, furriers, textile «"i !

miners) winch broke willi Hie A. P,
of L. and joined I lie I'nvfinleni. At
the beginning of September 1929 a
national convention was held in the
United States which created a new
trade union center to lead those or-
ganizations which adhere to the
platform of the class struggle. Thus,
life forced the advanced workers of
America to consolidate their forces
on a new foundation.**

The main weakness of De Leon's
policy consisted of its sectarian ex-
tremes, exaggerations and intoler-
ance. Was it not meaningless for
the S. L. P. to adopt in 1900 a reso^
lution forbidding members of the
party to hold leading offices in the
craft unions and admit into the
party officials of such unions? Is
it not the duty of the party, on
the contrary, to utilize the eap^
ture by its individual members of
leading positions in the trade unions
for the purpose of directing these
organizations along the proper
path?***

*Debs: "There is but one way to effect this great change, and that is for the work-
ingman to sever his relations with the American Federation and join the union that
proposes upon the economic field to represent his class." (L. R.)

[But it should also be noted of Debs that he remained to his end with the party,
the S. P., that ever kotowed to the A. F. of L., giving his endorsement and unqualified
support to the reactionary program of the S. P. politicians. — Publishers.]

** This statement is ridiculous — so ridiculous that one wonders what becomes of the
critical faculties of men like Raisky when confronted with individuals and situations
supposedly involved in the propaganda work in Soviet Russia. For Raisky evidently has
been taken in by the "foolscap paper unions" launched from time to time by the United
States Anarcho-iGommunists, but which we in this country know to be either totally non-
existent or utterly worthless. — Publishers.

*** This criticism of De Leon, and the reference to his policy as being "sectarian,"
"extreme," "exaggerated" and "intolerant," are as presumptuous on the part of Mr.
Raisky as they are unfounded. De Leon knew well what he was doing. By 1900 it had
become clear to De Leon that the A. F. of L. was no more to be captured by degrees,
or reformed from within, than was capitalist society to be so captured and reformed.

23

This sectarian attitude of De
Leon, which caused the revolution-
ary labor movement of the United
States a good deal of harm, was due
to the fact that he overestimated the
immediate revolutionary possibilities
in the United States. It is the fate
of many revolutionists to see the
much desired goal much nearer than
it is in reality. De Leon looked
upon the historical prospects of
America through field glasses. In
1893 Debs created the industrial
American Railroad Union which
soon embraced 150,000 workers. In
that same year was organized the
Western Federation of Miners
which adopted a Socialist platform.
In 1897 the Western Federation of
Miners withdrew from the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor. True,
during that year the American La-
bor Union fell under the powerful
blows of the capitalist offensive;

true, by 1905 the Socialist Trade
and Labor Alliance had only 1,400
members, but, to offset this, the In-
dustrial Workers of the World was
organized as a mass labor organiza-
tion the role of which in' the organ-
ization of the revolutionary elements
of American labor must not be un-
derestimated. These facts confirmed
De Leon in his belief in the possibil-
ity of the speedy capture of the ma-
jority of American labor on behalf
of revolutionary Socialism. But the
road toward this coveted object
proved to be much more difficult and
devious than De Leon thought. In
the next article I will show that the
great American revolutionist learned
the lesson of the movement and in
1908 adopted a more sober and
flexible position on tactical prob-
lems, though, even then he did not
completely free himself from the
elements of sectarianism.

Hence, no point of importance attaches to the argument of Raisky that members of the
Party should secure leading positions in the craft unions "for the purpose of directing
these organizations along the proper path." The best that able and loyal members in
such positions could do would be to obstruct, temporarily, the work of the fakers, but
how long would they last? The history of the movement has established the fact that
if a revolutionist in the craft union "bores from within" to a purpose, he will, perforce,
bare himself oust. And what applied to a Socialist working in the ranks would obviously
apply with still greater force to one who held office, with the complication of personal
material interests, and the obvious temptation to the individual, added. If the chiefs of
the A. F. of L. were labor lieutenants of the capitalist class, it goes without saying that
the petty officers were bound to act as "labor corporals" and "labor sergeants" of the
capitalist class. De Leon, as usual, was right. Far from being "sectarian" or "intoler-
ant," he was far-seeing, with the broad vistas of the logical future development before
him. — Publishers,

* On the contrary, De Leon did not overestimate "the immediate revolutionary pos-
sibilities in the United States." He always conditioned any statement he made on this
head with an "if" — the "if the working class (or a sufficient number) were organized
in revolutionary economic unions." The repeated references to De Leon's "sectarianism"
suggests that Raisky is not familiar with the fact that Marx was similarly accused, in
identical language, by his superficial critics. Raisky cannot be ignorant of the fact that
Lenin was also thus accused, as will be, indeed, every strong personality who steers
his course by a "polar truth or principle.* — Publishers.

24

VIII.
De Leon's greatest merit waa liis

consistent and uncompromising
struggle against, parliamentary cre-
tinism.

Does not a "visionary politician"
deserve contempt, "the man who
imagines that by going to the ballot
box, and taking a piece of paper,
and looking about to see if anybody
is watching, and throwing it in and
then rubbing his hands and jollying
himself with the expectation that
through that process, through some
mystic alchemy, the ballot will ter-
minate capitalism, and the Socialist
Commonwealth will rise like a
fairy out of the ballot box," said
De Leon.

The most important task of rev-
olutionary Socialism De Leon saw in
the destruction of the "mystic
mazes of what Marx called the 'cre-
tinism (idiocy) of bourgeois parlia-
mentarism.' "

This does not mean that De Leon
denied the necessity of utilizing the
bourgeois parliament. He merely
pointed out that, inasmuch as the So-
cialist vote is a question of right,
unless it is based upon power, it is

"weaker than woman's tears,
Tamer than sleep, fonder than ig-
norance,
Less valiant than the virgin in the

night,
And skilless as unpractieed infancy."

In parliamentarism De Leon saw
primarily an instrument of revolu-
tionary propaganda. But in order
that the parliamentary activity of
the Socialists could perform this
function it must be "uncompromis-
ingly revolutionary."

W. Liebknecht's aphorism, "To

parliementarlae is i<> <■ promliej i<>

log roll, lo sell oul," I ><■ l.inn COB

sidered admissible only under bhe
conditions of a bourgeois revolution,
but such a policy is "a badge of
treason to the working class" when
applied in modern America.

De Leon hated with a deadly
hatred the opportunists from the So-
cialist party who, in the chase for
votes, supported the A. F. of L. in
its struggle against the colored
workers, proclaimed its neutrality
'toward the reactionary trade union
leaders, entered into unprincipled
blocs with capitalists of the type of
Hearst (the newspaper magnate),
etc., and hopelessly sank in the mire
of political and other reforms. "All
such 'improvements,' " De Leon
said — "like the modern 'ballot re-
forms' and schemes for 'referen-
dums,' 'initiative,' 'election of Feder-
al Senators by popular vote,' and
What not — are, in the very nature of
things, so many lures to allow the
revolutionary heat to radiate into
vacancy." The task of the proleta-
riat consists of socializing the
means of production "without which
the cross he bears today will wax
ever heavier, to be passed on still
heavier to his descendants. No
'forms' will stead."

In 1912 an event occurred in the
political life of the United States
which strongly corroborated De
Leon's view of reformism as an in-
strument for the deceit of the work-
ing class. The former President
Theodore Roosevelt quarreled with
the Republican party bosses who
nominated Taft, Roosevelt's rival,
as candidate for presidency, and de-
cided to run for election without the
support of the Republican party,
'hoping to attract the masses of dis-

2id

contented workers and farmers. For
this purpose he advanced an elec-
tion platform which was completely
copied from the Socialist party and
secured more than 4< million votes.
One of the leaders of the Socialist
party, Victor L. Berger, kept on
complaining that Roosevelt robbed
the Socialist parly.* One naturally
recalls De Leon's reference to the
reformist platform as the banana,
skin which will cause the reformist
to slip himself and bring down the
proletariat with him.

In close logical connection with
De Leon's struggle .against parlia-
mentary cretinism stands his strug-
gle against respect for bourgeois in-
stitutions and legality. In Septem-
ber, 1912, The Visitor, a weekly or-
gan of a certain ultramontane organ-
ization in Rhode Island, published
fifteen questions which, in the opin-
ion of its editors, were to put So-
cialism to shame in bhe eyes of ev-
ery respectable citizen. Among these
questions, which the editors recom-
mended the readers to cut out and
always carry with them, one related
to confiscation. Do not the Socialists,
The Visitor asked, intend to confis-
cate capital? De Leon at once gave
a comprehensive reply in the Daily
People. To him this question was
neither new nor unexpected. He had
given the answer to it on April 14,
1912, in a debate in the city of Troy
on the question of "Individualism
versus Socialism," and ten years
earlier, in 1902, in "Two Pages from
Roman History."

The proletarian revolution, De
Leon replied, strives to socialize all
means of production. This act will
be a crime from the point of view
of capitalist laws and conceptions,
but every revolution carries with it
its own code of laws. From the*point
of view of the British, Jefferson, the
leader of the anti British revolution
for national independence, was a
"confiscator," for, contrary to the
British laws, he wrested the Amer-
ican colonies from England's hands,
but from the point of view of the
American people, including the
bourgeoisie, Jefferson was a national
hero who proved to be able to ig-
nore the laws of the oppressor and
establish new laws corresponding to
the interests of tJlie liberated people.
The bourgeoisie itself, when acting
as a revolutionary class, pointed out
to the proletariat the way to the so-
lution of its historical class tasks.
The bourgeois legality does ndt in
any way permit the proletarian rev-
olution. The latter carries within its
womb its own statute. "The revolu-
tionist who seeks the cloak of 'le-
gality,' is a revolutionist spent. He
is a boy playing at soldier,"

As a striking example of the help-
lessness of a Socialist who has not
learned to take a dialectical view of
the problem of law and who does
not dare honestly and openly to ex-
plain it to the workers, De Leon re-
ferred to the case of Thomas J,
Morgan, whom we have already
mentioned in connection with the at-
tempt to organize a labor party. In

*Here is what Lenin wrote about the result of the 1912 elections: '"Lastly, the im-
portance of the election lies in the unusually clear and striking manifestation of bour-
geois reformism as a means of struggle against Socialism Roosevelt has been ob-
viously hired by the clever millionaires to preach this fraud." (Lenin's Works, 1925, Vol.
12, Part 1, pp. 323-324.)— L. R.

26

1894, while addressing the American
Federation of Labor convention In
Delaware with a vdhemenl appeal in
the name of Socialism, Morgan was
interrupted by one of the leaders of
the I '(deration, Adolf Strasser.

"May I ask you a question?"

"Of course."

"Do you approve of confiscation?"

And Morgan fizzled out like a
bubble. Strasser felt that he gave
the Socialist agitator a knock-out
blow.

IX.

De Leon was an internationalist.*
The sharp weapon of his criticism
he directed not only against the na-
tive opportunism but also against its
manifestation in the international
labor movement. De Leon belonged
to the consistent left wing of the
Second International.** He was one
of the first to raise arms against
Kautsky and expose his opportunism
when Kautsky was still at the ze-
nith of his revolutonary fame.

De Leon took up and popularized
the apt description of Kautsky's
Paris resolution (1900) on the Mil-
lerand case, as a "Kaoutchouc reso-
lution." At the Amsterdam Congress,
De Leon delivered a sharp attack
upon Kautsky and demanded a revi-

i of t lie Paris resolul em Hen

is the resolul ion whieh I >e I

Submitted i" the name of tile Soeial

ist Labor Parties of Hie United
States, Australia and Canada:

"Whereas, The struggle between
the working class and the capitalist
class is a continuous and irrepres-
sible conflict, a conflict that tends
every day rather to be intensified
than to be softened;

"Whereas, The existing govern-
ments are committees of the ruling
class, intended to safeguard the
yoke of capitalist exploitation upon
the neck of the working class ;

"Whereas, At the last Interna-
tional Congress, held in Paris, in
1900, a resolution generally known
as the Kautsky resolution, was
adopted, the closing clauses of
which contemplate the emergency of
the working class accepting office at
the hands of such capitalist govern-
ments, and also, especially, presup-
pose the possibility of impartiality
on the part of the ruling class gov-
ernments, in the conflicts between
the working class and the capitalist
class ; and

"Whereas, The said clauses — ap-
plicable, perhaps, in countries not
yet wholly freed from feudal insti-
tutions—were adopted under condi-
tions both in France and in the

*In 1911 De Leon sharply took to task the only Socialist Congressman, Victor
Berger, for failing to make use of the congressional platform for the international edu-
cation of the workers. In the opinion of De Leon, Berger should have made an interna-
tional demonstration during the election of the Speaker at the first meeting of the Con-
gress, by nominating its own candidature in the name of "The American Branch of the
International Socialist Family." (See "Berger' s Hit and Misses" [now known as "Rev-
olutionary Socialism in U. S. Congress'l], by Daniel De Leon, New York, 1919). —
L. R.

** De Leon attended the following congresses of the Second International, the Con-
gress of Zurich (1893), Amsterdam (1904), Stuttgart (1907), and Copenhagen
(1910).— L. R.

27

Paris Congress itself, that justify
erroneous conclusions on the nature
of the class struggle, the character
of capitalist governments and the
tactics that are imperative upon the
proletariat in the pursuit of its cam-
paign to overthrow the capitalist
system in countries, which, like the
United States of America, have
wholly wiped out feudal institutions;
therefore be it

"Resolved, First, That the said
Kautsky Resolution be and the same
is hereby repealed as a principle of
general Socialist tactics;

"Second, That, in fully developed
capitalist countries like America,
the working class cannot, without
betrayal of the cause of the prole-
tariat, fill any political office other
than such that they conquer for and
by themselves."

It is noteworthy that if De Leon
very conditionally (perhaps) admits
of the possibility of applying Kaut-
sky's policy in countries which have
not yet been freed from the elements
of feudalism and which were there-
fore, as De Leon thought, still un-
ripe for the Socialist revolution, for
the Anglo-Saxon countries, and pri-

marily for the United States, where,
according to De Leon, after the
Civil War of 1861-1865, the working
class and the capitalist class faced
each other as enemies, De Leon in-
sisted upon an uncompromising rev-
olutionary policy which is at the
present time formulated as the pol-
icy of the class struggle.

The relations between De Leon
and the leaders of the Second Inter-
national, particularly Kautsky, were
cool and strained. According to
Boris Reinstein, a former member of
the Central Committee of the So-
cialist Labor Party and De Leon's
right hand man,* the latter went
without enthusiasm to the congress
of the Second International where
the S. L. P. delegations were prac-
tically ignored and the Hillquits and
Simonses felt in their own element.
The situation in America and the
struggle between the two Socialist
parties of the United States were
judged by the malicious speeches of
the Socialist party representatives
at the congress and in the lead-
ing European Socialist journals,
particularly the Neue Zeit, where
De Leon was painted as an anarch-

*One must suppose that Mr. Raisky learned from Reinstein himself that he was
De Leon's "right hand man," for certainly no one else knew it, least of all De Leon. But
Raisky does well to refer to Reinstein as a former member of the N.E.C. of the SjLP.,
though he does not tell (probably because he does not know) how he came to be a
former member. Reinstein had in 1912 proposed that the S. L. P. vacate the political
field, and urged that the individual members of the S. L. P. join the treacherous and
corrupt bourgeois Socialist party. When he ran for reelection as member of the N.E.C.
he was overwhelmingly defeated, and solely because of his proposed "sell-out" to the
S. P. De Leon was incensed, so much so, in fact, that when in 1914 Reinstein (in a
letter to the National Secretary of the Party) inquired of De Leon (who was then lying
ill in a New York hospital) as to what the latter thought of his running for delegate
to the then projected International Socialist Congress at Vienna, De Leon made it un-
mistakably clear that if Reinstein was running he would not receive De Leon's vote.
The less Raisky or any one else says about Reinstein being De Leon's "right hand man,"
the better. For Reinstein had a knife (his unity obsession) up his sleeve, and never
missed an opportunity to jab this knife into the vitals of the Party. — Publishers.

28

1st and " wrecker «>f bh« trade unions.
De Leon was Inclined to explain

the coolness of the leaders of the
International toward the Socialist
Labor Party by the difference be-
tween the social and economic struc-
ture of the United States-and of the
European countries. "They cannot
understand us," De Leon main-
tained, "we are divided from them
not only by a physical but also by
a historical ocean. They still live
under semi-feudal conditions while
we are at the threshold of the So-
cialist revolution." We will not criti-
cize here De~~L~eon's mistake which
consisted of his failure to under-
stand the possibility of the Socialist
revolution breaking out first in a
country with a "relatively smaller
development of industry.* To us
one thing is unquestionable, the cool
attitude of the leaders of the Second
International toward De Leon's So-
cialist Labor Party sprang from the
same sources which were responsible
for the coolness toward the Russian

Bolsheviks, the Bulgarian "Tel
niaks," the Dutch "Tribunisls, la
short toward the revolutionary win£
of the international labor movement.

X.

Up to 1918 Lenin was apparent-
ly unacquainted with the works and
views of De Leon. At the Stuttgart
congress, to which both De Leon
and Lenin were delegates, they
worked in different commissions (the
former in the trade union commis-
sion) and did not meet in their work.

In 1918 an article was published
in the Workers* Dreadnought, en-
titled "Marx, De Leon and Lenin."
The article wag signed by Margaret
White, the pseudonym of a prom-
inent British Communist. The au-
thor of the article expressed the be-
lief that De Leon was Lenin's pre-
decessor in anticipating the Soviet
system. [The same idea was ex-
pressed by the author in his book
"iComimunism and Society," by W.
Paul, 192S. — L..R.1 Lenin then be-

* As regards De Leon's stand toward the leaders of the Social Democracies in Eu-
rope: He never hesitated pointing them out clearly as reformers and not Socialists. He
was, however, at all times willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as far as handling
the situation in their own countries or perhaps, rather, was he overanxious to show that
while he demanded no interference from the International in American affairs in gen-
eral relations to the Socialist movement, he granted the same non-interference to the
other parties in the International as long as the Socialist Labor Party remained a mem-
ber thereof.

As to De Leon's "failure to understand the possibilities of the Socialist revolution
as breaking out in a country with a 'relatively smaller development of industry,'" De
Leon was perfectly well aware that the Socialist revolution might at any time break out
in a country like Russia for example (See, for example, "Flashlights of Amsterdam
Congress," p. 131 to end of Chapter XII, and "Russia in Revolution," editorial "Is It to
Be," p. 29.), where the old system was hanging over and was rotten ripe for overthrow,
though he regarded }t as logical to expect it to break out in the United States first.
[What De Leon emphasized and what the Socialist Labor Party still says is that Social-
ism, fully developed, must inevitably take precedence in a country of highly developed
industry. . In this Lenin agreed with us when he said "that it was easy for Russia, in
the concrete, historically quite unique,, situation of 1917, to begin a social revolution;
whereas to continue it and complete it will be more difficult for Russia than for other
European countries." (" 'Left Wing' Communism.") — Publishers.

29

came greatly interested in the
[American revolutionist and asked
B. Reinistein to bring him De Leon's
works which Lenin studied only at
the end of 1918, after recovering
from his wound.

On May 11, 1918, the WEEKLY
PEOPLE, the organ of the Socialist
Labor Party, published an address
by John Reed, of which the follow-
ing is an excerpt:

"Premier Lenin, said Reed, is
a great admirer of Daniel De Leon,
considering him the greatest of mod-
ern Socialists — the only one who
has added anything to Socialist
thought since Marx. Reinstein man-
aged to take with him to Russia a
few of the pamphlets written by De
Leon, but Lenin wants more. He
asked Reed to try hard to send sev-
eral copies of all of De Leon's pub-
lished works, and also a copy of
'With De Leon Since '89/ a biog-
raphy by Rudolph Katz.

"Lenin intends to translate this
into Russian and write an introduc-
tion to it."*

In a private conversation B. Rein-
stein told me that at the end of
May, 1919, he spoke with Lenin
about De Leon.

"But did not De Leon err on the
side of 'sectarianism'?" Lenin asked
half jestingly, half earnestly, but
added that he was mightily im-
pressed by the sharp and deep criti-
cism of reformism given by De Leon
in his "Two Pages from Roman His-
tory," as well as by the fact that as
far back as April, 1904, De Leon
anticipated such an essential element
of the Soviet system as the abolition
of parliament and its replacement
by representatives from production
units.

Of course this is not the Soviet
system but only an element of the
Soviet system. From the Bolsheviks
De Leon was divided by his failure
to understand the inevitability and
necessity of a transitional epoch in
the form of a dictatorship of the
proletariat. He believed that the
Socialist revolution would at once
eliminate the State, and that society
would step right into developed So-
cialism on the morrow of the rev-
olution. This explains De Leon's
denial of the need for a party, after
the revolution. We can thus see
that no equation mark can be drawn
between De Leon and Bolshevism.**
However, there is one thing which

* Quoted from Olive M. Johnson's "Daniel De Leon, Our Comrade," which was
published in the Symposium "Daniel De Leon, The Man and His Work," I. p. 81,
New York, 1926. Lenin's great interest in De Leon was noted also by Robert Minor
(iThe World, Feb. 4, 1919) and Arthur Ransome ("Russia in 1919," by Arthur Ran-
some). According to B. Reinstein, in May, 1919, Lenin intended to write an article
devoted to the fifth anniversary of De Leon's death, but some circumstances prevented
him from carrying out his intentions. — L. R.

** Mr. Raisky apparently, has failed to make as close a study of Lenin- as one might
reasonably expect of an admirer so ardent and articulate. Had he been as familiar with
Lenin's writings as his professed acceptance of "Leninism" implies, he could scarcely
have been guilty of the misconception expressed in his reference to "the inevitability and
necessity of a transitional epoch in the form of a dictatorship of the proletariat." To
Mr. Raisky is commanded the following utterance by Lenin:

"There is no doubt that the Socialist revolution in a country where the immense'

30

unquesl lonably makes thi m as In to
each other, namely, the uneompro
□rising and determined opposition i<>
opportuniim in fill its forma ana

mnnil'esl al ions.

*

De Leon died on May 11, 1914,
that is, before the World War and
the Russian Revolution. We have
every reason to believe that the

i American revolutionist would
have learned i he lessons of i In ■<
historical events and supported the
position of Leninism, In any i
De Leon's unquestionable merit con
sists in that hi a number of Anglo-
Saxon countries he trained cadres
of revolutionary Marxists who are
now struggling within the ranks of
the Communist International.

majority of the population belongs to the petty land-holder producers, is possible only
by reason of a number of special transition measures, which would be entirely unneces-
sary in countries having a developed capitalism, where the wage earners in industry and
agriculture constitute an immense majority. In countries with a highly developed capi-
talism, there has been for decades a developed class of wage workers engaged in agricul-
ture. Only such a class can serve as a support to an immediate transition to Socialism,
socially, economically and politically. Only in countries in which this class is sufficient-
ly developed will the transition from capitalism to Socialism be possible. [Emphasis
ours.] (Speech on ''Our Relation to the Peasants," delivered at the 10th Congress of
the Russian Communist party, March 15, 1921.)

It is further clear that Mr. Raisky has failed to understand the essential meaning
of the phrase, "the dictatorship of the proletariat." For a more complete treatment of
this and related subjects Mr. Raisky and the readers are referred to "Proletarian De-
mocracy vs. Dictatorships and Despotism," by Arnold Petersen. (New York Labor
News Co., Publishers.) — Publishers.

31

We have presented here a Rus-
sian on De Leon, one out of the
many of the Bolshevik group of rev-
olutionists who have taken pains to
inform themselves about the great
American revolutionist, the man who
Lenin said was the only one who had
added something to Socialist theory
since Marx. One side of De Leon's
genius Mr. Raisky has comprehend-
ed and fully appreciated, viz., his
clear and clean-cut position against
the reformer who calls himself a So-
cialist and the capitalist lieutenant
who poses as a labor leader. The
struggle in Russia against the Men-
sheviks, which presently enlarged
to a struggle against practically the
entire Social Democracy in Europe,
placed the Bolsheviks in the identi-
cal position in relation to these So-
cial patriots and traitors to the
working class and the Socialist
movement that De Leon and the So-
cialist Labor Party gradually
worked up to during the nineties and
have assumed uncompromisingly
ifroim that time onward. So far Mr.
Raisky's article is excellent.

When, however, Mr. Raisky from
time to time crosses the bar into De
Leon's particular tactical position of
the movement as specifically applied
to this country, he suffers the usual
collapse of the Russian unable to see
the necessary tactical difference of
the movement in a highly developed

industrial country and a country like
Russian where the revolutionary
movement is obliged to do the work
that Russian capitalism never rose
high enough to perform. This defect
of Mr. Raisky's understanding is
particularly evident, is in fact sum-
marized, in the last couple of para-
graphs. "De Leon," says Raisky
admiringly, practically quoting Len-
in, "anticipated such an essential'
element of the Soviet system as the
abolition of parliament and its re-
placement by representation of pro-
duction units." But he adds that, of
course, this is only one element of
the Soviet system. This is true, but
on the other hand, it is also true
that the Soviet system is only "an
element" of Socialism, really a
makeshift until the conditions of
Russia have ripened and are ready
for Socialism. Because of this the
next sentence of Raisky puts the
matter entirely on its head. De Leon
did not fail to understand the ne-
cessity of a transitional period in
the form of a dictatorship of the pro-
letariat in a country like Russia
with little industrial development
and a tremendous peasant popula-
tion. He saw this necessity as
clearly as Marx did. But he also
saw what Marx in the England of
the 80's could at least sense, but
what even today the most advanced
of the Russian revolutionists fail to

(

comprehend) Dtmeljj i hal in i ooun

try where induslry [fl |0 highly dfl
^ velopcd as in Ann iiea, and win Ti-
the working class is both drilled •■mil
thoroughly organized for industrial
operation, if that working class is
also organized on the industrial field
revolutionary industrial organ-
ization, it is possible — nay, more
than possible, inevitable — for the
political organization, as rapidly as
it can be accomplished, to turn over
all power of government to the In-

strial Union. To do otherwise
would be, as De Leon has repeated-
ly pointed out, a usurpation, trea-
son to the Revolution. This the Rus-
sians cannot see. The low level of
their own industrial development
obscures their vision. We do not
blame them for not being able to see
our position, but we refuse, of
course, to be influenced by the tac-
tics of a revolutionary movement
placed in such a position.

It has been remarked that Lenin
erred when he said that De Leon
had added something to revolution-
ary Socialist theory, i.e., that he had
actually developed the theories of
Marx to their fullest conclusion. It
is said that, on the other hand, all
that De Leon did was to do what
Lenin himself did, forge a key that
fitted Russia and that therefore De
Leon added no more to Socialist the-
ory than Lenin did. But this is
wrong and Lenin was right. We be-
lieve he had the genius to see, or at
least to sense the difference between
De Leon and himself in this respect.
Lenin fell upon a revolutionary situ-
ation when it was necessary to "in-
vent" a makeshift state to hold the
revolution till the conditions of Rus-
sia could be brought up to Socialism.
Thus what he "added" was neither

Socialism aor Socially theorj Tin-

Soviet Si. "lie was iin rely u l.iclieal

necessity to bridge over an interim.
liul the Industrial Union and I In-
Industrial Government idea is some-
thing quite different; it is Socialism
complete, Socialism in operation, the
Socialist Industrial Republic which
had never before been fully compre-
hended. While all countries need
not go through Sovietism and the
dictatorship of the proletariat, all
countries will have to organize in-
dustrially into the Industrial Union
and the Industrial Government be-
fore they can reach Socialism — for
the Industrial Government is Social-
ism. There is no other.
*

Mr. Raisky concludes his essay on
De Leon in a rather remarkable
fashion. He says: "In any case, De
Leon's unquestionable merit consists
in that a number of Anglo-Saxon
countries he trained cadres of revo-
lutionary Marxists who' are now
struggling within the ranks of the
Communist International.'' Mr. Rai-
sky is faimiliar with Lenin's tributes
to De Leon since he quotes one of
them himself, and the clearest at
that. When Lenin says that De
Leon was the only modern Socialist
"who has added anything to Social-
ist thought since Marx," does Mr.
Raisky suppose that Lenin had in
mind the "cadres" (to use his or his
translator's barbarous expression) of
"revolutionary Marxists" struggling
in the Communist International ? Or
does he suppose Lenin had in mind
De Leon's working out of the form
"at last discovered" under which, in
fully developed capitalist countries,
might be carried out the economic
emancipation of labor? And as ifor
these "cadres" of would-be revolu-

83

tionary Marxists, we ask: When,
where? Surely Mr. Raisky cannot
mean Reinstein, who was specifical-
ly repudiated iby De Leon. He can-
not mean the windbag Wm. Paul of
whonn De 'Leon never heard and who
repudiated all that De Leon ever
taught. Nor can Raisky have in
mind Rudolph Katz, who not only
denied his master more shamefully
than any other, but who to deser-
tion added base betrayal of all that
is implied in the designation "revo-
lutionary Marxist." For dt was Mr.
Katz who in 1917, in (characteristic
social patriot fashion, and in line
with his denial "in toto" that the
S. P. was a bourgeois outfit, wrote
President Woodrow Wilson from
Jamestown, iN. Y. :

"These threats [of the manufacturers
of Jamestown], if carried out, would se-
riously affect the present peaceful relations
between employes and employers in gen-
eral in this city and have a tendency to
cripple industry indeed. AT THE ART
METAL COMPANY OF JAMES-
TOWN, WHERE GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTS FOR STEEL FURNI-
TURE FOR BATTLESHIPS ARE
NOW BEING EXECUTED, A STRIKE
WAS AVERTED BY THE COOL-
HEADEDNiESS OF OUR [Katz's] OR-
GANIZATION." (Emphasis ours.)

Mr. Raisky's coimpiliment is a
left-handed one, indeed, for anyone
who can be "struggling" in the
Communist International in Anglo-
Saxon countries in the lunatic
fashion exemplified by the United
States variety, can do so only in
complete negation of all that Marx

and De Leon ever taught.
*

There is only one more remark we
have to make in regard to this rather

remarkable article, but this does not
concern Mr. Raisky but the transla-
tor. That Mr. Raisky has done
most careful research is quite evi-
dent. He has used quotations from
a wide range of books and pamphlets
by and about De Leon and he has
in each case chosen those that ex-
pressed the very kernel of "De
Leonism." Besides this, he has given
footnotes with very careful refer-
ences as to work, edition and page.
To secure the originals of these ref-
erences, therefore, would have been
an easy task for the translator. (But
to this individual "De Leon pam-
phlets" were either anathema or
else he was conceited enough to
believe he could do De Leon better
than De Leon. The result in most
cases was ludicrous, sometimes even
more humorous than that classic,
"The Jumping Frog of Calaveras
County," which to the world's great
amusement Mark Twain retranslated
literally into English from the
French translation.

We cannot refrain from quoting a
few gems:

Dc Leon's well known sentence,
"The tiger will defend the tips of
his mustache with the same ferocity
that he will defend his very heart,"
has taken this shape, "A tiger will
furiously defend the ends of his
mustache and will fight with even
greater fury for his heart," which
not only brings forth a preposterous
picture of an attacked tiger philoso-
phizing on which he will defend
with the greater fury, his heart or
his mustache, but, of course, it
throws the whole illustration out of
joint. The illustration intended to
show that the capitalist will not give
up even the smallest of his privi-
leges.

34

Tliis passage from "Reform of
Revolul ion":

. . . .Tin- refoi mei , foi Instam
evpr vaporing agalnsl "tyxaimj
yd watch him; give Him rope enough
;iihI you will always sec him straining
to In- tin- top man in the shebang, -the -
man on horseback, the autocrat, whose
whim shall be law —

(becomes nearly as preposterous, be-
ing translated thus:

A reformist always shouts

against "tyranny," but just watch him;
' give him a free hand and he will al-
ways strive to get on top, to become a
rider, an autocrat, whose whim must
be law.

"To become a rider" is, of course,
an absolutely meaningless figure in
this connection, whereas the "man
on horseback" is a well known figure
of speech for the autocrat or dicta-
tor.

One more passage will suffice to
show the vigor and clarity of De
Leon's language as compared with
the re-translation.

From "What Means This Strike":
Long did the Socialist Labor Party
and New Trade Unionists seek to de-
liver this important message ["the es-
sential principles"] to the broad masses
of the American proletariat, the rank
and file of our working class. But we
could not reach, we could not get at
them. Between us and them there
stood a solid -wall of ignorant, stupid
and corrupt labor fakers. Like men
groping in a dark room for an exit, we
moved along the wall, bumping our
heads, feeling ever onwards for a door;
we made the circuit and no passage
was found. The wall was solid. This
discovery once made, there was no way
other than to batter a breach through

thai ivall WhIi Hi. i

- tall i' and I i

we rlli i ted .1 P '■••'!'.' i ll " i ill """

, rumblei . a! laal we Hand Eai i to i u (
with Hi, rank and ftk <>f the Amei b an
proletariat and we ARE DELIVER*

ING OUR MESSAGE— as you may
judge from the howl that goes up From
that fakers' wall that we have broken
through.

As it appeared in the translation:

iFor a long time the Socialist Labor
Party and the new trade unionists
strove to convey this important message
("the healthy principles") to the broad
masses of American labor, to the rank
and file of our working class. But we
failed to make our way toward them,
we could not get to them. We were
divided by a solid wall of ignorant,
stupid and corrupt labor fakers. Like
people groping their way out of a dark
room, we moved along the wall, bang-
ing our heads against it, constantly
groping for the door in front of us; we
made a circle 'but did not find a way
out. It was a blind wall. Once we
made this discovery there was nothing
to be done but break a way through it.
By the battering ram of the Socialist
Trade and Labor Alliance we formed
an exit; now the wall is crumbling, and
we are finally standing face to face
with the rank and file masses of the
American working class and are con-
veying our message to them. You can
judge this by the howl coming from
that wall of fakers.

But the valiant translator lias not
only rewritten De Leon, he has not
balked at taking a hand at Shakes
peare. The lines quoted by De
Leon in "Socialist Reconstruction,"
in describing the ballot withoul the
industrial power to back it, viz.:

35

weaker than woman's tears,
Tamer than sleep, fonder than ignor-
ance,
Less valiant than the virgin in the

night,
And skilless as unpracticed infancy.

have become:

is weaker than women's teaia,
Gentler than dream, madder than ig-
norance,
Even less brave than a maiden at night,
And artless as inexperienced childhood.

36

LKNIN ON DE LEON.

"Lenin, closing his speech on the adoption of the Rights of Work-
ers Bill in the congress [of Soviets] showed the influence of De Leon,
whose governmental construction on the basis of industries fits admir-
ably into the Soviet construction of the state now forming in Russia. De
Leon is really the first American Socialist to affect European thought." —
Arno Dosch-Fleurot, Petrograd despatch to N.Y. World, Jan. 81, 1918.

"Lenin said he had read in an English Socialist paper a comparison
of his own theories with those of an American, Daniel De Leon. He had
then borrowed some of De Leon's pamphlets from Reinstein (who be-
longs to the party which De Leon founded in America), read them for
the first time, and was amazed to see how far and how early De Leon
had pursued the same train of thought as the Russians. His theory that
representation should be by industries, not by areas, was already the
germ of the Soviet system. He remembered seeing De Leon at an In-
ternational Conference. De Leon made no impression at all, a grey old
man, quite unable to speak to such an audience; but evidently a much
bigger man than he looked, since his pamphlets were written before the
experience of the Russian Revolution of 1905. Some days afterwards I
noticed that Lenin had introduced a few phrases of De Leon, as if to do
honor to his memory, into the draft for the new program of the Com-
munist party." — Arthur Ransome in "Six Weeks in Russia in 1919."

Lenin said: "The American Daniel De Leon first formulated the
idea of a Soviet Government, which grew up on his idea. Future society
will be organized along Soviet lines. There will be Soviet rather than
geographical boundaries for nations. Industrial Unionism is the basic
thing. That is what we are building." — Robert Minor in the New York
World, Feb. 8, 1919.

Premier Lenin is a great admirer of Daniel De Leon, considering
him the greatest of modern Socialists — the only one who has added any-
thing to Socialist thought since Marx It is Lenin's opinion that the

Industrial "State" as conceived by De Leon will ultimately have to be
the form of government in Russia. — John Reed, May 4, 1918.

Socialist Reconstruction of
Society

The Industrial Vote

By DANIEL DE LEON

"Reconstruction" is the all absorbing topic these days. What
is to take the place of the present planless and anarchic form
of society? How is it to be done? Read this small booklet.
It presents in clear, convincing language an indictment
against capitalist society, and furnishes a well defined and
concrete basis for the Industrial Republic of Labor.

Read it. Study it. Pass it on to your friends and shopmates.

PRICE FIFTEEN CENTS

NEW YORK LABOR NEWS CO.

45 ROSE STREET. N. Y. CITY

ISLBurning Question

= — » f

Trades Unionism

A Lecture Delivered at Newark, N. jf.
By DANIEL DE I, EON

Trades Unionism is one of the methods by which the exploited
class of to-day — the working class — seeks to resist or minimize
the power of the exploiter. The author goes into a searching
analysis of trades unionism and shows how the mistakes incurred
by tradesunionists lead to the nullification of their efforts at re-
dress. Correct tactics are set forth. No student of Socialism but
must be familiar with the trade union movement, therefore this
book (should be read.

PAPER, Id LhNTS

Send All Orders to

New York labor News Co.

45 ROSE STREET
NEW YORK

Two Pages
From
Roman
History

i

!

l

I. Plebs Leaders and

Labor Leaders

II. The Warning

of the Gracchi

Two Lectures by
DANIEL DE LEON

The Trades Union Question is becoming the Burning Ques-
tion of the day. Reform movements are simultaneously growing
into political factors. In this work the "pure and simple" union
labor leader is held up to the light of the plebeians' experience
with the leaders of their time; and, through the iailure of the
Gracchian movement, it is shown how modern reforms are pit-
fells for the labor movement ©f to-day.

A 96-PAGF- PAMPHLET SELLING AT

rice I v, eiit v-five cents

New Tork Labor News Co.

A5 ROSE ST., NEW YORK. N. Y.

AS TO POLITICS

— DANIEL DE LEON —

"Parliamentarian," "political action," "industrial action,"
"revolutionary action," "mass action," "anarchy," "dynamit-
ism," "physical force," "legality," "civilized methods" are
terms which today are loosely bandied, about by the capitalist,
papers as well as by all manners of so-( ailed "revolution-
aries." In the discussion under the general heading "As to
Politics" De Leon has made all these and many other terms,
now in daily use, perfectly clear.

The Socialist speaks correctly and with scientific preci-
sion. There is no better mirror of the chaos prevailing in the
labor movement today than that produced in this book by the
opponents of the S. L. P. position; there is no clearer defence
of revolution and civilization than the answers given by De
Leon.

No pamphlet issued by the Party is of greater importance
at this time. Buy it, sell it, and spread the light!

PRICE 30 CENTS

New York Labor News Co., 45 Rote St.
New York City

The Gotha Program

By KARL MARX

and

Did Marx Err?

By Daniel De Leon

Here is a splendid pamphlet for the Socialist student — especially
for the stadent of Socialist tactics. It is in Marx's very best vein, and
constitutes a vigorous condemnation of the muddleheaded reformer
who parades under the name of Socialism.

With Marx's classic is published one of De Leon's brilliant edito-
rials entitled, "Did Marx Err?" De Leon here discusses Marx's con-
demnation of the Gotha Program and concludes that Marx did not err.

The master minds of Marx and De Leon focussed on the same sub-
ject is indeed a treat of which no student will hesitate to avail himself.

A special preface has been prepared of which a special feature is
a brief consideration of "the dictatorship of the proletariat," to which
Marx makes passing reference in his discussion of the Gotha Program.

PRICE 20 CENTS

New York Labor News Co., 45 Rose Street, New York City

The Revolutionary Act

By Frederick Engels

This pamphlet, containing an essay on revolutionary tac-
tics by Frederick Engels, originally written as a preface to
a monograph by Karl Marx on the "Class Struggles in
France, 1848-1850," is a discussion of the conditions in
Europe during the latter half of the nineteenth century,
together with the status of the revolutionary movement It
deals particularly with revolutionary tactics and compares
the resources, advantages and difficulties of the proletarian
as compared with previous revolutions. But most important
of all, it balances carefully the revolutionary weapons of
the present revolution, and finds the possibilities of mili-
tary insurrection under ordinary circumstances to be de-
cidedly the weakest weapon in the hands of the modern
revolutionary proletariat, as long as political power- rests
in the hands of its opponents.

Added to the Engels essay is a short statement by Daniel
.De Leon, an answer to a question regarding the necessity
of both the political and industrial revolutionary organiza-
tions. Engels has made plain the weakness of military or-
ganization and the necessity of political action. De Leon
shows that political action itself is not a force, that it
requires backing- In preparing this backing the worker
has to choose between two: military action or industrial
organization. De Leon shows here, as he showed repeat-
edly, that in an industrial country, the backing of the
Industrial Union is the logical and by far the most
powerful.

PRICE FIFTEEN CENTS

NEW YORK LABOR NEWS COMPANY
45 Rose Street New York City

DANIEL DE LEON"

THE MAN AND HIS WORK

A SYMPOSIUM

Daniel De Leon wu a pio-
neer among men. He wag
the torch bearer, the carrier
of a new idea in a land where
the capital 5 s t class had be-
come PI werful almost be-
yond comprehension; where
the corroding- influences of
the capitalist system had de-
vitalized and turned to Its
own uses such as there was
of a labor movement. De
Leon battled during his long
and useful life against these
corrupting and corroding in-
fluences, and while fighting,
he formulated the tactics
needed in the workers'
struggle for emancipation.
He formulated the idea of
industrial Socialist society, pointing to the purely transitory
nature of the political state, emphasizing time and again the
[pregnant truth that if civilization is to continue in its onward
march, the working class of the world must rear the new Re-
public of Labor, and that the woof and the warp, so to speak,
of the new social fabric, must be wrought in accordance with
the occupational or industrial mould of present-day society,
with an industrial administration, or an Industrial Council, to
take the place of the antiquated state machinery. He further
emphasized the necessity of the workers' now preparing to
in\\d that new society by organizing into industrial unioas,
CONTENTS.
BOOK I. — In Memoriam, Rudolph Schwab; Reminiscences
of Daniel De Leon, Henry Kuhn; Daniel De Leon — Our Com-
rade, Olive M. Johnson.

BOOK IL-nWith De Leon Since '89, Rudolph Katz; To His
Pen, Chas. H. Ross; Daniel De Leon— The Pilot, F. B. Guar-
nier; De Leon— Immortal, Sam J. French; Daniel De Leon—
An Oration. Oh. H. Corregan.

347 PAGES. CLOTH $1.75— PAPER $1.25
V.Y. Labor News Co. f 45 Rose St., New York City

The Socialist
Labor Party

A Booklet Relating Its History and Development
Through Four Decades.

By HENRY KUHN and OLIVE M. JOHNSON

Henry Kuhn, National Secretary of the S. L. P. for the greater part of
the period when De Leon was at the helm, has written the history of the
movement from 1890 to 1905, from which date Olive M. Johnson, Editor
of the WEEKLY PEOPLE, member of the Party since 1895, and inti-
mate associate of De Leon, has taken it up and brought it up to date.
The early flounderimgs, the grasping of a clear aim, the struggle against
internal dissension and external corruption, the death of its leader and
the period of lethargy following that disaster, and the final emergence
of the Socialist Labor Party as a Party not to be swerved by chimera*
or pleasing mirages are narrated in a style at once literary and gripping.

A PAMPHLET
THAT EVERY ONE WOULD LIKE TO OWN.

PRICE FIFTY CENTS
New York L«bor News Co., 45 Rose St., New York City

1890-1930
By ARNOLD PETERSEN

A fine illustration of the fact that history can be written as a science
and philosophy, and not as a pageant.

Its value lies in its able presentation of the historic material, facts and
philosophy upon which the triumph of the Socialist Labor Party is being
reared, and the skill with which it conducts the reader in an educational
retrospect along the paths trod by the S. L. P. during the forty years
of its existence.

Written to commemorate the 40th Anniversary of the S.L.P. by one
who has been its National Secretary for nearly two decades, and still
occupies that arduous and important advanced post in the Party, this
work comes with all the intimate knowledge, experience and authority
of one who has played a large part in many of the more recent periods
and events signalled here as evidence of the great progress made by
the S. L. P. in the clarification and orientation of Revolutionary Social-
ism in America.

PRICE FIFTEEN CENTS

New York Labor News Co., 45 Rose Street, New York City

Marxism

vs.

Anti=Marxism

By ARNOLD PETERSEN

Also an Essay on Karl Marx by Daniel De Leon
and an Editorial by Olive M. Johnson

The articles collected in this pamphlet — written primarily for the col-
umns of the WEEKLY PEOPLE — have been given this more permanent
form because, as a group, they constitute an excellent demonstration of
the use social pests can be put to in the cultivation of the revolutionary
Socialist garden. The article on Karl Marx by De Leon — a beautiful
dialectic exposition of the class struggle— binds the first article together
with the following two as skilfully as if it had actually been written for
the purpose and not many years before either of them was penned.
Together the four articles form a page in the materialist interpretation
of history as it is making before our eyes today — always the most dif-
ficult history to interpret.

ILLUSTRATED.
32 LARGE PAGES, WITH STRIKING COVER DESIGN.

Price 20 cents
New York Labor News Co., 45 Rose St., New York City

Bakuninism vs. Marxism.

By Arnold Petersen and Olive M. Jiohnson.

Three articles demonstrating the danger to the proletariat,
as well as folly and imbecility, of Anarchism in general
and Anarcho-Communism in particular, which latter is the
twentieth century form of Bakuninism so bitterly fought
in the early seventies of the last century by Marx, Engels
and other revolutionary Socialist leaders.

PRICE 10 CENTS

ECONOMIC BASIS OF EDUCATION

By A. M. Orange,

With introductory essay by Olive M. Johnson. A stimu-
lating study of the proper function of education and its
relation to the economic basis and industrial development.

PRICE 10 CENTS
New York Labor News Co., 45 Rose St., New York City

OFFICIAL ORGAN SOCIALIST LABOR PARTY

A revolutionary Socialist journal. Dedicated to the idea that
tlit- emancipation of the working class must be the class-con-
scious work of that class. The WEEKLY PEOPLE teaches
that a political victory of the working class is "moonshine"
unless the might of the workers in the shape of a revolutiona-
ry industrial union is behind that victory. It teaches furl her
that the organization of the working class can not be accom-
plished by dragging the revolutionary movement into the rat-
holes of anarchists and "pure and simple" physical forcists
generally. The WEEKLY PEOPLE ruthlessly exposes the
scheming "pure and simple" politician as well as the "pure
and simple" physical forcist. In doing this it at the same time
time imparts sound information regarding Marxian or scien-
tific Socialism. It is a journal which, read a few times, be-
comes indispensable.

Subscription rates: One year, $2; six months,
$1 ; three months, .50 cents; trial subscription,
25 cents. Bundle rates supplied on request.

Weekly People, 45 Rose St., New York City.